© Copyright 2007, T. Stanfill Benns
(None of what appears below — in whole or in part — may be used without
the express and written permission of the author.)

All emphasis in bold within quotes in the works on this site
has been added by the author unless noted otherwise

Proof of dissimulation in pre-election book

In fact we can confirm without doubt that Bawden's pre-election intention was obliquely manifested in the book Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, pg. 453. There Bawden states: "Once the Pope accepts election, he immediately acquires full jurisdiction, even if he is a layman. It is our opinion that this election automatically enrolls him in the clergy." This opinion, however, was ambiguously expressed by one who, at that time, was considered by most of the electors as only a possible candidate for election. (This was prior to his release, in the early 1990s, of a 1989 document stating he had considered himself the only candidate qualified for election since 1987.) Also it was posited as an opinion only, with no proofs for its truthfulness offered. And it could be seen to insinuate, in the use of the word "our," that the opinion was shared by this author, the co-author of that book, which I vehemently deny. Nor was this statement qualified in any way, and could easily be taken to mean that a bishop-elect, a lay pope, would acquire some status attached to the office itself, by virtue of the jurisdiction received from God alone, predisposing him to exercise the episcopal position received, (such as when a vicar capitular administers a vacant episcopal see). This is how I, the co-author of the book, perceived it, and Bawden never mentioned his opinion again or elaborated on its meaning. Only when Bawden's actual interpretation of this statement was published to the Internet on September 7, 2006 and March 7, 2007, respectively, was his real intention made fully known.

Let us suppose for a moment, however, that I collaborated with Bawden in this statement. At the time the statement was made only as an indefinite opinion; it was not sufficiently clear to formulate a specific evaluation concerning its orthodoxy. Bawden alone knew how he meant what he said, and he told us how we were to understand this pre-election statement on September 7, 2006 and March 7, 2007. Between the publication of the pre-election book and the present, Bawden obviously harbored occult heresy. Even had Bawden never indicated his support of this belief, his later statements meant the end of his pretensions to the papacy. For as Martin Gwynne stated above, "We can know with complete certainty that a pope who publicly and pertinaciously denies or doubts a definite truth of faith, was a heretic before his election and therefore never pope, even if direct evidence of his earlier heresy is lacking." In implying that I colluded with him in his heresy, Bawden forgets two things. One, I made a profession of faith prior to election and was absolved conditionally, at least according to him. Following the "election," I believe, he formally "absolved" us all; at least he says in the pre-election book that the "Pope" would do this. Secondly, in Cum ex above, Pope Paul IV decrees: "It shall be lawful for all and sundry who would have been subject to persons so promoted and elevated, had these not first strayed from the Faith or been heretics, even for those who participated in the election of one straying from the Faith, or of a heretic or schismatic to the Papacy, or who otherwise presented and pledged him obedience and paid him homage…to depart with impunity at any time from obedience and allegiance to said promoted and elevated persons and to shun them as sorcerers, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs. Nor shall they be liable to reprisal through any censure or penalty, as renders of the Lord's robe, for departing, for the reasons set forth above, from fealty and obedience to said promoted and elevated persons…"

In the pre-election book, Bawden made no reference whatsoever to the fact that he believed the laity was capable of granting any kind of actual ecclesiastical designation related to Orders itself; of calling him to first tonsure. The way the sentence is constructed, one relates the acquisition of jurisdiction, which is the last topic mentioned in the first sentence, to his enrollment in the clergy, which can mean anything from a newly tonsured male to a man not yet in orders appointed as bishop. Now simple clerics do not possess jurisdiction, but only those who are members of the hierarchy, which is why it was logical to relate this statement to a Pope as bishop. Also the term election is used once again, not acceptance of the election. (His later statements would clearly prove that the election itself, not its acceptance, is what he considered as conveyance of his clerical status. For in his Sept. 7, 2006 statement he says, "…when we received the necessary votes.") By not specifying terms here Bawden leaves this statement open to interpretation. A rule of scholastic argument states one is never to use such words unless they are qualified. He refers to receiving the automatic cleric status but never says how he receives it or from whom he receives it. The election itself does not a Pope make; only the acceptance of the election, the choosing of a name and the certification of the acceptance. In fact the error defined by scholastics as amphiboly renders the statement invalid, even as an opinion, simply because it is ambiguous. Throughout his often redundant and sometimes indecipherable works, Bawden repeatedly commits this fallacy of amphiboly, something he has been warned about over and over again for years.

Now amphiboly is a fallacy of argument which consists in "dangling modifiers, loose sentence structure and ambiguous antecedents," according to John Oesterle's Introductory Logic. This also invalidates a syllogism or any statement that should be able to be reduced to a syllogism. Pope Innocent XI condemned the use of ambiguous terms in 1679, (DZ 1177). The statement he condemned reads: "A just reason for using these ambiguous words exist, as often as it is necessary or useful to guard the well being of the body, honor, property, or for any other act of virtue, so that the concealing of the truth is then regarded as expedient and zealous." It is obvious from other statements made in this work, that Bawden believed that the Traditionalists were to be thrown off course at all costs. This also was his reasoning in omitting the most important part of Pope Pius XII's statement from Six ans se sont concerning the need for a layman accepting election to be fit for ordination. Clearly Bawden saw this as an "act of virtue," necessary to give the Church a true Pope — himself. Bawden states in Will the Catholic Church Survive…? that under Can. 2317, those violating what is forbidden in this specific set of errors condemned by Pope Innocent incur ipso facto excommunication. "The teacher [is] excommunicated by the act of teaching them. This applies even if he is in good faith," (pg. 372). Those familiar with V2 instances of this same ambiguity understand that there is a reason for not making such distinctions. That reason is that these very distinctions definitely would have alerted others to the true direction in which the antipopes were headed. This is why antipopes Angelo Roncalli and Giovanni Montini were so successful in deceiving the Church.

On page 443 of the same book, Bawden clearly states that without the call of the local ordinary, a vocation cannot exist. And since Bawden also compiled the "Questionnaire" section of the book containing the Profession of Faith, which required all voters, himself included, to denounce lay investiture and omission of priestly examination prior to Orders, there was no real reason, at the time, to question his opinion in this matter. His true internal intention would become obvious only when the first opportunity to receive Holy Orders post-election presented itself. Then he would reveal himself to be just as indifferent to the laws of the Church as all the Traditionalists he condemns.

In stating in the book his belief that a man would automatically be enrolled in the clerical state upon election, Bawden offered a mere opinion; and an imprudent opinion at that. Rev. A. C. Cotter, S. J., remarks that an opinion is only "hesitating assent…based on a good solid motive," (in a prudent opinion), while realizing that "the evidence is not sufficient for a firm assent…If the assent rests on a very feeble motive, it is called imprudent," (ABC of Scholastic Philosophy). To actually constitute heresy, Bawden's assent needed to be firm. The statement could be qualified as ambiguous, but not heretical per se. Bawden had 18 years to find the six necessary opinions needed to make his opinion truly probable. Needless to say, he cannot point to one far less six theologians who support his error. And yet he taught this error publicly as truth, offering no foundation whatsoever of its Catholicity. At present he is stating that a layman elected Pope can immediately be ordained priest without receiving minor orders, and claims this is historic fact: "Normally men enter the clerical state by receiving tonsure legitimately in the Catholic Church. but a man becomes Pope and enters the clerical state if he is not already a member by accepting papal election. For this reason he is not tonsured but ordained immediately into the priesthood and consecrated bishop as two millennia of Tradition demonstrates." Nice thought, but it is not correct according to historical records.

The first lay Pope, Leo VIII was elected in 963. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that "He was consecrated Bishop of Rome on 6 December, all the lesser orders having, in violation of canon law, been bestowed upon him in the meantime by Sico, Bishop of Ostia." What Canon Law condemned, Rev. Joseph Brusher, S.J. writes in his Popes Through the Ages is that the bishop "hurried through the necessary ordinations without the customary intervals." Brusher relates that in the case of the next lay pope, John XIX elected April 12, 1024 "there was a hurried conferring of holy orders until, sometime in April, Romanus was consecrated Pope." The Catholic Encyclopedia states concerning Romanus: "he immediately received all the orders in succession." These are the only two lay popes where such facts are given. The others either were elected in times where little information of any kind was available or their histories do not mention the reception of Orders. Even the last election law, written by Pope Pius XII, does not state that a layman may be immediately ordained a priest. All the law says is that "if the one elected is not a priest or bishop, he is to be ordained or consecrated by the Dean of the Sacred College." Ordained could, ostensibly, mean that the one elected was only a deacon. Or, in the case of a layman, it could refer to more than one ordination, since the law is written for what usually happens, not for the extraordinary event, and a layman has not been elected Pope in over 700 years. In doubt, we consult the mind of the lawgiver, Pope Pius XII, who in Sacramentum Ordinis says the Minor Orders are not to be omitted. (This also concurs with the old law observed above, according to Can. 6§4).

Sacramentum Ordinis

Bawden seems to believe that receiving the Minor Orders prior to Ordination can be easily avoided and he can issue himself a dispensation to proceed directly to Orders with impunity. He also has stated that a Pope can omit accidental rites of the ordination ceremony, referring to the scrutiny or the right of the faithful to object to priestly candidates on grounds of unfitness. For this he refers to the fact that nowhere in Quo Primum does it say that a Pope cannot omit or adjust the accidental rites (of Mass or Sacraments). But antecedent to Pope St. Pius V's bull, Pope Pius XII's Sacramentum Ordinis does say this. In paragraph six Pope Pius XII states: "What we have above declared [concerning the fact that only the imposition of hands constitutes the form for Holy Orders] is by no means to be understood in the sense that it be permitted even in the slightest detail to neglect or omit the other rites which are prescribed in the Roman Pontifical; on the contrary, We order that all the prescriptions laid down in the said Roman Pontifical be religiously observed and performed…Let NO MAN therefore infringe this Constitution which we have enacted, nor dare to contravene the same." This easily includes someone considering himself Pope Pius XII's "successor," since Pius could have so phrased what he said, as pontiffs have done in the past, to allow his successor to adjust his pronouncement. This statement places Bawden's omission of Minor Orders and his omission of the scrutiny from the Ordination ceremony in a new light altogether.

Should any object that this infallibility is limited to the determination of matter and form, Revs. Woywod and Smith reply, in their commentary on Can. 1002: "The Code insists that the sacred rites of the Pontificale Romanum be followed with absolute accuracy. This is of the greatest importance because the essential rites of the various orders are so entwined with other sacred ceremonies that it would be dangerous to omit ceremonies indiscriminately…The Constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis expressly declares and ordains that each and every one of the rites and ceremonies of Sacred Ordination must be religiously observed. Indeed, the text and rubrics of the Pontificale Romanum are ordered by the Supreme Pontiff to be amended in such a way as to reflect clearly his declaration made by his supreme Apostolic authority and power on the essential matter and form of sacred ordination…" All the marks of infallibility exist in this constitution.

But this constitution was not written until 1947, while the papal election law was written in 1945. Also this election law was written prior to the issuance of Sedes Sapientiae, another papal constitution on the formation of priests and religious. Since both of Pope Pius XII's constitutions are unquestionably infallible, these teachings must be harmonized with that part of the earlier election law concerning the election of laymen, according to Canons 23 and 147; and this especially includes Pope Pius XII's mention of electing a layman in Six ans se sont. Pope Pius XII wrote prolifically on the subject of Holy Orders. If his laws on this topic are taken as a whole, it is painfully clear that it would never be his intention to allow a laymen to be advanced to the papacy without any theological training, spiritual formation, testing or even experience in some other related capacity; not to mention the assistance of cardinals and bishops in supplying for any necessary additional training and guidance. It also must be remembered that both the one ordaining and those ordained to the priesthood must have the intention to be ordained according to the mind of the Church, in the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine. How can this be so if the mind of Pope Pius XII on fitness and the rites of the Church is ignored?

Canon Law states that laws are to be interpreted according to the mind of the lawgiver (Can. 17). Concerning heresy, the canonists Revs. Bouscaren-Ellis write: "[In the definition of a heretic] pertinaciter does not imply duration, nor violence; it simply means setting up one's mind against the known mind of the Church." Rev. Eric MacKenzie, in his The Delict of Heresy says under the heading of Pertinaciter: "What we have already said makes plain that heresy consists not merely in error, but in error which is consciously and deliberately conceived by excluding the evidence which would otherwise lead to a true judgment." So here we can gather that Bawden's preliminary statement demonstrated all the elements of pertinacity pre-election, as proven by his recent and telling elaborations on that pre-election statement. And even though we have made all the information available to Bawden that he may know the Church's mind on the heresy of lay investiture and the fitness the Church demands for Ordination, his obstinacy is even more evident, proving that his own mind is in direct contradiction to the mind of the Church. This is explained in greater detail below.

Belloc's formula for establishing the existence of heresy

In the Introduction to his work, The Great Heresies, Hilaire Belloc provides the following components of heretical perversity: "Heresy means…the warping of a system by 'exception': by 'picking out' one part of the structure and implies that the scheme is marred by taking away one part of it, denying one part of it, and either leaving the void unfilled or filling it with some new affirmation.

" The denial of a scheme wholesale is not heresy, and has not the creative power of a heresy. It is of the essence of heresy that it leaves standing a great part of the structure it attacks. It is the taking away from the moral scheme by which we have lived of a particular part, the denial of that part and the attempt to replace it by an innovation."

So in Bawden's heresy, what is plucked out, what is denied and what is replaced with something new? Let us go to the words as he states them. All emphasis in bold is the author's.

On July 16th, 1990, when We received the necessary votes, the Church called Us not only to the priesthood, but also the episcopate and the Papacy, which we accepted. Canonically, a man does not have a vocation, until the Archdeacon on behalf of his Ordinary calls out his name at the various ordinations. Therefore on the day a man is tonsured, he has a vocation to the clerical state…" (Sept. 7, 2006; Bawden's response to a letter from a Traditionalist inquirer published to both the Christania discussion group and the Internet site Vatican in Exile). "By our election we have been called to the priesthood…When we became Pope [we became] head of the Catholic Church and of the hierarchy and thus de facto a cleric," (March 7, 2007 communique published by Bawden to both the Christania discussion group and the Internet site Vatican in Exile).

1. What is plucked out. The part plucked out here is the positive proofs of fitness required from the candidate by the bishop of his diocese for ordination (unless the one elected is already a priest). The current law of Pope Pius XII demands that such a person be ready to be ordained. This means that he can accept election only on the condition he is fit in every way (infallible constitution Sedes Sapientiae) for said ordination. If a layman is elected, testimony from pastors and spiritual directors (if applicable); employers, physicians, teachers, colleagues, friends and relatives must be submitted ascertaining one's holiness of life, refined character, rational nature, work records, education and faithfulness as an exemplary lay Catholic, prior to ordination. This would be in addition to any pre-election investigation of candidates for election. The candidate cannot submit anything in way of self-reporting. This is the most important job in the world. Investigation and recommendations should be diligently sought and procured accordingly.

2. What is denied is that it must be the proper bishop, and cannot be the people, who confer any clerical privileges or ecclesiastical dignity connected to Orders, especially first tonsure with its rigorous examination. What also is denied is that a layman elected Pope must proceed through the Minor Orders, tonsure included, before receiving Ordination, (see Sacramentum Ordinis above).

3. What is replaced with something new. Pope Pius XII teaches that for a layman to validly accept election, he must be fit for immediate ordination, including the reception of Minor Orders. The "something new" is that a layman elected Pope automatically receives from the people or electors immunity from the laws of the Church, de facto clerical status without examination, and a definite calling to become both priest and bishop sans the scrutiny in the ordination ceremony.

4. The innovation here is diabolically clever. Without any qualifications or proof of fitness whatsoever, aside from some selective home study of theological topics, Bawden is eligible to receive Orders. By claiming the above, Bawden effectively dispenses himself from the need to prove any worthiness or past existence of accountability. He wipes out every teaching legislated by the Church concerning the nature of priestly vocation, the grave necessity of confirming priestly vocation and the various examinations contained in the Minor Orders. While it may be true this was done in the past, as he maintains, it also is true that infallible decrees on this matter have forbidden it be done after Sacramentum Ordinis was issued in 1947. In 1958, Pope Pius XII wrote in Ad Apostolorum Principis, condemning the lay investiture of Chinese bishops: "Everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying." This is yet another example of pertinaciter. It will be examined further below.

5. What was left standing. The canonical provision allowing the laity to elect a Pope is the one exception possible to actual lay investiture. This is true since the people act by virtue of a privilege without possessing any jurisdiction and do not lend their own power to the one elected, but merely designate the candidate and rely on Divine law to grant universal jurisdiction. The structure of the canonical provision for lay election only in emergency conditions stands. But this is the case only if an additional canonical provision can be adduced to guarantee two things: one, that such an election be accepted solely by one truly fit in every way and two, that the pope-elect can be ordained within one year by a valid and licit bishop. The deviation or exception from that basic structure, introduced by Bawden, is what constitutes his heresy.

By deceitfully stating his beliefs in the pre-election book Will the Catholic Church Survive…? as an opinion, Bawden paved the way for that opinion to later be taught as Catholic truth by a "true pope." He also relied on the good will of his "electors" to quietly go along with his plans. By effectively ignoring all reference to any need for fitness, he made it difficult for the average Catholic to even learn that a man cannot be ordained unless he is fit according to Church standards. While Bawden claims he can dispense himself from the illicit reception of Orders, this is simply not possible, not only because he never became pope, but also because it is forbidden by infallible decree. It must be said, however, that this really has no bearing on Bawden's actual heresy. It only serves to further support the demonstration that Bawden has no intention to submit himself to examination, pre-election or pre-Ordination, by anyone. And neither does he have any intention of obeying even previous Popes in matters demanding obedience.

Clearly Bawden held his heresy pre-election as later verified in his Internet writings. These are analyzed in the next-listed documents, Summary and Errors Contradicting Church Dogma